Clowns: Friend or Foe

 Have you ever had something that scares you so much that it will always spark some reaction? Coulrophobia, or the fear of clowns, is something that causes so much fear and anxiety in me. It rooted from when I was around the ripe age of seven. It was an overcast day, perfect for watching movies on T.V. This was before the time of when you could view the titles of shows, so being the innocent seven year old I was, flipped on a movie to channel to a seemingly ordinary film about kids in a suburb, much like McFarland. Things appeared routine until this little boy lost his boat into a storm drain. In the drain resided a clown who lured the child close enough to seize his ankle and wrench him to his doom. You get the main picture that this movie I watched was Steven Kings It.

The fear of clowns goes deeper than just the movie though. You never know what is really lurking under all of that makeup and costumes. Clowns are just so phony and they get right up in your personal space to the point where it is uncomfortable. I don’t think I could put into words why they cause such anxiety in me, but I had to try, it would be the fact that they deceive people with their “happiness” and “tricks”. What are they really thinking inside? What are their true intentions? So much is left unanswered that it leaves me feeling helpless and vulnerable.

Fear is something that is implanted so deep inside of everyone that it is hard to overcome. I believe I will always have some fear towards clowns. I don't know if it will be to the extreme of when I was seven, yet it will remain, festering and waiting to resurface when the time is right. So whenever you here the distinctive laugh of a seemingly "friendly" clown, think twice about approaching with an open hand.

WikiLeaks

There has long been the argument on what is too much when it comes to sharing secret knowledge to the world. What is considered acceptable, and what is considered to be truly classified. Julian Assange and his creation, WikiLeaks, have pushed this line to its breaking point, causing U.S. officials to force him to remain entrapped in an embassy, for fear of being arrested. But was what Assange leaked all that bad? Does it deserve to be brought out in the open to the public?

         

 I feel that this question of whether to categorize WikiLeaks as horrible or ingenious is rigged. I think it depends completely on the situation. If it were exposing military secrets, such as what Chelsea Manning did, then I would find that it would need to be stopped. If WikiLeaks exposed a corrupt politician who was for example transferring government funds into his personal bank account, then I feel it was doing justice.

                    

 The problem with sites such as WikiLeaks is the fact that everything has to be put into someone else’s perspective. Someone could find something completely justifiable for being on WikiLeaks, whereas another would find that it is putting our safety at risk. This inconsistency in perspective is the root of all the problems. I don’t think it would be right to shut down WikiLeaks, because it is a form of journalism in a way and it can help our society, however, I feel like there could be a better way sort out what is acceptable and safe to put out there, and what could really cause harm to a country.  

        

 I think that being consistent is the key. In Schoenfeld’s piece, Can the U.S. Bring Assange to Justice? , they mentioned that “No news outlet has ever faced criminal charges for publishing secrets” (pg. 2). I found this interesting because the news is able to broadcast to millions of people every day and share all of these stories, yet they get praised for their insight and courage. Again this goes back to perspective. WikiLeaks is portrayed as a villain, and the news is a martyr. Others might view it opposite. Perspective is all the matters in this tricky situation.

Overall, I've concluded I am very torn on this decision, and have come to the conclusion that there is no simple solution to Assange and his WikiLeaks. We will just have to wait and see what becomes of this controversial site, and if it lives up to our expectations, or burns down in flames. Only time will tell.

Black Mass: Whitey Bulger, the FBI, and a Devil's Deal

            I chose to read Black Mass: Whitey Bulger, the FBI, and a Devil’s Deal by Dick Lehr and Gerard O’Neill as my non-fiction book. I have always been fascinated by big mobsters and wondered if this book would give me a new perspective into their lives. There has also been some news on Whitey Bulger, so this book seemed like a perfect fit.

            This novel is centered on the relationship between James “Whitey” Bulger, the godfather of the Irish Gang in South Boston and John Connolly, an FBI agent looking for his big break during the late 1970’s up until late in the 90’s. It is interesting how this pair met. The introduction to the novel shares that Connolly and Bulger actually grew up in the same building and knew each other as young boys. Now to get to the main point, Bulger becomes an informant to the FBI, reporting on his main rival: the Italians. This leads into how Steve Flemmi got involved. He is known as the man with connections, especially with the Italians. Both mobsters gained protection from their own crimes, eventually leading them to rise in status and power while eliminating their main opponents.

            John Connolly had always watched others rise in the fame of their informants. While reading this book, it was very prevalent that he wanted the pride and status of upholding an important mobster. What made the novel unique was that the authors clearly felt that the FBI was using the partnerships for their own personal gain. An example is when Bulger almost lost his protection because he was target in a major FBI investigation in a horse race fixing in 1978. With the help of Connolly, Bulger managed to escape untouched with the help of Connolly and his supervisor, John Morris. Another is when Connolly tipped off Flemmi about a bug in their old meeting place in the Southie (South Boston). These are only two of the plethora of help that Connolly provided for Bulger and Flemmi, breaking informant rules to maintain his “status”.

            I like how this novel told about the softer side of Whitey Bulger. Everyone thinks that he is this ruff and tuff gangster, yet he is a person as well. I learned that he loved his mother and lived with her until his death. He liked to work out and keep himself clean and presentable. He enjoyed having coffee with friends. Little tidbits such as these were sprinkled in the text, and made it more personal.

            Currently, Bulger was put on trial and found guilty of 11 of the 19 murders as well as extortion, money laundering, drug dealing and weapons possession. I didn't even know that his trial was taking place until I saw it on the news and recognized his name. It was just another connection to this novel.

            Overall, I found that I enjoyed this novel more than I thought. It was written more like a story with plot and kept my attention going. I learned a lot about the mobs in Boston and how Whitey Bulger rose to become one of America’s top gangsters. I would recommend this book to anyone willing to give it  a try.

Wollstonecraft, Fuller, and Steinem

                As a female, I found that all of these essays somewhat connected to my life in some way. I thought that the variety of style in each piece was interesting and made me look at things in different way. I will say however that a few of the pieces were a little hard to interpret at first.

            The main theme in each essay was about feminism and discrimination against women in the past and the present. I think the most insulting comment someone can make to a woman is that they are weak. Women are so strong in so many ways. They should get more credit for how much strength they bring both physically and emotionally. Throughout time women have been thought of as second class citizens. In Margaret Fuller’s piece, she mentioned “And knowing there exists, in the world of men, a tone or feeling toward women as towards slaves…”  (pg. 1). I had never made this connection before, yet in some ways it seems true. Women have been thought as only capable of domestic chores such as cooking and cleaning and caring for children, while the men are free to work and live their own lives. Does that seem like a slave to you?

            Another fascinating point made was that men seem to care more about their position in social status or view in society then women. Gloria Steinem’s whole essay was about how if men could menstruate, it would almost become a bragging right on who could menstruate the longest, heaviest, etc. Obviously men can’t menstruate and women can, and you don’t see in society as it being as a positive thing in a way. I don’t know many girls who enjoy their period. I just found this point very interesting and a good way to show the male psyche verses the female.

            I find that being discriminated as a woman is still present in society today. Some can argue that is improving, and yes it has. Women are allowed to vote and work and have more rights. I feel however, that there are a lot of under the radar issues still present. Each of these writes who wrote their pieces felt discriminated in some way just because they are a woman.

            Overall, I found these essays to be inspiring. I want to prove history and the stereotypes wrong. I want to be a successful strong woman. I don’t want to be another domesticated housewife that does a man’s bidding. I want to step out on my own and make my own place in life.

Is Google Making us Stupid?

No one can deny the increasing presence of technology in our society. The Internet has become a worldwide phenomenon that connects us to global information 24/7. The question that Nicholas Carr asks us as a reader is what the Internet is really doing to us; is there more harm than benefit to this technological breakthrough?

A key point that Carr made was that the more he used the Internet, the less desire he had to read something deep, like a novel. This was because he didn't have the concentration to sit down and comprehend more than around five pages of text. Using the Internet provides us with the ability to search through a plethora of information in seconds, giving us tons of options. I took notice that when I was reading this article, it was hard to focus myself.

Another point mentioned was a “new kind of reading”, or skimming. It takes less time to glance over the text and pick out what we consider important. The skimming causes a lack of comprehension because we don’t take the time to absorb the context. I found the passage using Maryanne Wolf, a developmental psychologist theory interesting. She mentioned that this new sense of urgency and immediacy in reading or even television would directly affect the way we live our lives. It makes sense. Every day seems to be a rush to cram in as much as possible before the sun goes down. It also seems like a race as to how fast all of this can be done.

There is a common saying known as “Google it!”. I believe this saying stems from human’s desire to do as little work as possible and make things very easy. Rather than take the time to research a question, we would rather just type it in the search and believe whatever answer pops up to be true.  This could be a possible conclusion for the concentration aspect. Why take the time to read five pages when it could take five seconds to search it online.

I found an intriguing passage on page four (“The Net…media rules.”). In a way, it made me laugh a little because these new technologies had to keep up with the constantly changing methods of advertisement. Even the Internet had to provide pop up ads. This connected me with cell phones because it seems that whenever you get a new phone, the next best thing comes out.

Now back to the question of if Google is making us stupid. I think that Google, and the internet itself has both pros and cons. I think Carr present both sides of the argument well. Google allows us to access innumerable quantities of information quickly. On the downside, we read over this information as quickly as we access it, which leads to concentration and comprehension issues. I think the main point to be taken from this article is that there should be a steady balance between technology and the real world. Without either, who knows where we would be today?

The Ethics of Living Jim Crow

                Every child learns about racism and the Civil Rights movement during their academic years. I think it is important to hear about first- hand accounts of racism from those who lived it. Richard’s essay told his personal experience with the Jim Crow Laws, which were a set a prejudice and unjust laws put in action to limit the rights of African Americans.

                What I found interesting about Richard’s essay was how he told about his “education” of the Jim Crow Laws. His first encounter was when he was a young boy throwing cinders at the white boys. His mother informed him that he was right to get hit with a milk bottle and gave him a severe beating. Later in the essay he talks about various jobs he held, such as working at the optical factory or the store. What attracted my attention was the way he presented his “education”. He seemed naïve about the Jim Crow Laws, especially when he confided in his black companions. Richard seemed like the only one who was surprised about what was happening and even questioned if these laws were right. An example is when the store owner’s son beat up the black woman and when Richard asked one of his friends about it, they replied, “Hell, it’s a wonder they didn't lay her when they got through.” (pg. 6).

                Another startling aspect of this essay that stuck to me was how the black people were so nonchalant about the treatment of their peers. They seemed lifeless and drained, almost brainwashed to believe that they were indeed lower than the whites and they somehow deserved this treatment. I guess after growing up with the laws, they didn't question, but simply accepted them as the way of life and how things were always going to be.

                Again I want to stress how Richard seemed to be the sole one questioning the Jim Crow Laws. Maybe that’s how it all starts though, simply by a person asking a question. Is this right? How do you think the Civil Rights movement started? People were fed up with the mistreatment. I would like to think the Civil Rights movement began with those similar to Richard. Even though he began to accept them when he moved to the hotel, I would like to bring you back to his childhood when he was naïve. You can see the possibility of change in him, and that’s what inspires others and me.  

"Talk of the Town"

We all remember where we were the day that it happened. 9/11 ripped through the Twin Towers and the hearts of Americans like a bull in a china shop. We lost a sense of safety and pride. America was too powerful and our security too strong to be breached—until 9/11.

                Safety took a huge blow after this catastrophic event. American’s started questioning their neighbors, particularly those who shared the same skin color as the bombers. I feel it is important to remember that there are bad people in the world, but there are also really good people. As stated by John Updike, “It is mankind’s elixir, even if a few turn it to poison.” We can’t let a few bad apples ruin our opinions of the innocent. They are sharing the same grief and confusion we are. They are no different than us.  

                One of the hardest parts of dealing with tragedy and loss is picking ourselves up and moving on in life.  There are so many questions. Why us? What did we ever do? Could I have stopped this? These questions churn in our heads over and over until we can’t take it anymore. The message is to keep going in life. There has always been and there will always be tragedy. The real question is when will the human race ever choose peace over violence?

                So far, I have discussed the view point of Updike, but not of Susan Sontag. Her opinions differ from mine, but are still important to analyze. The way I interpreted her perception was that American’s were in a way more guilty then the bombers. We let the officials who govern us alter the truth and manipulate us into thinking things in the Middle East were alright, when the reality was far from it.

                A great point that Sontag made was that this is not Pearl Harbor. This event came from completely different circumstances, not to justify the actions of the bombers in any form.

                I think both essays were an appealing read because they were both very different. Updike spoke more about the aftermath on the human race, where Sontag felt the blame should be placed on careless politicians.

                What we really should be focusing on is preventing a tragedy like this in the future. It may be part of human nature in a way, but is there a way to overcome it? All the hate and anger starts small, so is there a way to pluck the weed, roots and all, before it grows thorns? Only time will tell.